BackgroundPoor health increases the likelihood of experiencing poverty by reducing a person’s ability to work and imparting costs associated with receiving medical treatment. Universal health care is a means of protecting against the impoverishing impact of high healthcare costs. This study aims to document the recent trends in the amount paid by Australian households out-of-pocket for healthcare, identify any inequalities in the distribution of this expenditure, and to describe the impact that healthcare costs have on household living standards in a high-income country with a long established universal health care system. We undertook this analysis using a longitudinal, nationally representative dataset – the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, using data collected annually from 2006 to 2014. Out of pocket payments covered those paid to health practitioners, for medication and in private health insurance premiums; catastrophic expenditure was defined as spending 10% or more of household income on healthcare.ResultsAverage total household expenditure on healthcare items remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2014 after adjusting for inflation, changing from $3133 to $3199. However, after adjusting for age, self-reported health status, and year, those in the lowest income group (decile one) had 15 times the odds (95% CI, 11.7–20.8) of having catastrophic health expenditure compared to those in the highest income group (decile ten). The percentage of people in income decile 2 and 3 who had catastrophic health expenditure also increased from 13% to 19% and 7% to 13% respectively.ConclusionsOngoing monitoring of out of pocket healthcare expenditure is an essential part of assessing health system performance, even in countries with universal health care.

Background: Reducing stillbirth rates is an international priority; however, little is known about the cost of stillbirth. This analysis sought to quantify the costs of stillbirth in Australia. Methods: Mothers and costs were identified by linking a state-based registry of all births between 2012 and 2015 to other administrative data sets. Costs from time of birth to 2 years postbirth were included. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences between women who had a stillbirth and those that did not.Macroeconomic costs were estimated using value of lost output analysis and value of lost welfare analysis. Results: Cost to government was on average $3774 more per mother who had a stillbirth compared with mothers who had a live birth. After accounting for gestation at birth, the cost of a stillbirth was 42% more than a live birth (P < .001). Costs for inpatient services, emergency department services, services covered underMedicare (such as primary and specialist care, diagnostic tests and imaging), and prescription pharmaceuticals were all significantly higher for mothers who had a stillbirth. Mothers who had a stillbirth paid on average $1479 out of pocket, which was 52% more than mothers who had a live birth after accounting for gestation at birth (P < .001). The value of lost output was estimated to be $73.8 million (95% CI: 44.0 million-103.9 million). The estimated value of lost social welfare was estimated to be $18 billion. Discussion: Stillbirth has a sustained economic impact on society and families, which demonstrates the potential resource savings that could be generated from stillbirth prevention.

IntroductionThe current literature in Australia demonstrates that there are variations in access and outcomes in perinatal care based on socioeconomic factors. However, little has been done looking at the level of out-of-pocket healthcare costs associated with perinatal care. The primary aim of this project will be to quantify health service use and out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure associated with childbearing and early childhood in Queensland, Australia.Methods and analysisThis project will build Australia’s first model (called Maternal & Child Cost MOD) of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure by using administrative data from the Queensland Perinatal Data Collection, of all childbearing women and their resultant children, who gave birth in Queensland between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2016.The current costs to the health system and out-of-pocket health care expenditure of patients associated with maternity and early childhood health care will be identified. The differences in costs based on indigenous identification, socioeconomic status and geographic location will be assessed using linear regression modelling and counterfactual modelling techniques.Ethics and disseminationHuman Research Ethics approval has been obtained from Townsville Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC Reference number: HREC/16/QTHS/223). Consent will not be sought from participants whose de-identified data will be used in this study. Permission to waive consent has been gained from Queensland Health under the Public Health Act 2005.The results of this study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and through presentations at conferences, regionally and nationally. Our target audience is clinicians, health professionals and health policy-makers.

Objective. This study sought to compare costs for women giving birth in different public hospital services across Queensland and their babies.Methods. A whole-of-population linked administrative dataset was used containing all health service use in a public hospital in Queensland for women who gave birth between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015 and their babies. Generalised linear models were used to compare costs over the first 1000 days between hospital and health services.Results. The mean unadjusted cost for each woman and her baby (n = 134 910) was A$17406 in the first 1000 days. After adjusting for clinical and demographic factors and birth type, women and their babies who birthed in the Cairns Hospital and Health Service (HHS) had costs 19% lower than those who birthed in Gold Coast HHS (95% confidence interval (CI) -32%, -4%); women and their babies who birthed at the Mater public hospitals had costs 28% higher than those who birthed at Gold Coast HHS (95% CI 8, 51).Conclusions. There was considerable variation in costs between hospital and health services in Queensland for the costs of delivering maternity care. Cost needs to be considered as an important additional element of monitoring programs.What is known about the topic? The Australian maternal care system delivers high-quality, safe care to Australian mothers. However, this comes at a considerable financial cost to the Australian public health system. It is known that there are variations in the cost of care depending upon the model of care a woman receives, and the type of delivery she has, with higher-cost treatment not necessarily being safer or producing better outcomes. What does this paper add? This paper compares the cost of delivering a full cycle of maternity care to a woman at different HHSs across Queensland. It demonstrates that there is considerable variation in cost across HHSs, even after adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. What are the implications for practitioners? Reporting of cost should be an ongoing part of performance monitoring in public hospital maternity care alongside clinical outcomes to ensure the sustainability of the high-quality maternal health care Australian public hospitals deliver.

Background: Maternity care is a significant contributor to overall healthcare expenditure, and private care is seen as a mechanism to reduce the cost to public funders. However, public funders may still contribute to part of the cost of private care. The paper aims to quantify (1) the cost to different funders of maternal and early childhood healthcare over the first 1000 days for both women giving birth in private and public hospitals; (2) any variation in cost to different funders by birth type; and (3) the cost of excess caesarean sections in public and private hospitals in Australia. Methods: This study utilised a whole of population linked administrative dataset, and classified costs by the funding source. The mean cost to different funders for private hospital births, and public hospital births in the Australian state, Queensland are presented by time period and by birth type. The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) C-model was used to identify the optimal caesarean section rate based upon demographic and clinical factors, and counterfactual analysis was utilised to identify the cost to different funders if caesarean section had been utilised at this rate across Australia. Results: We found that for women who gave birth in a public hospital as a public patient, the mean cost was $22 474. For women who gave birth in a private hospital the mean cost was $24 731, and the largest contributor was private health insurers ($11 550), followed by Medicare ($7261) and individuals ($3312). Private hospital births cost government funders $10 050 on average; whereas public hospital public patient births cost government funders $21 723 on average and public hospital private patient births cost government funders $20 899 on average. If caesarean section deliveries were reduced, public hospital funders could save $974 million and private health insurers could save $216 million. Conclusion: Private hospital births cost government funders less than public hospital births, but government funders still pay for around 40% of the cost of private hospital births. Caesarean sections, which are more frequently performed in private hospitals, are costly to all funders and reducing them could impart significant cost savings to all funders.

Background There is global concern for the overuse of obstetric interventions during labour and birth. Of particular concern is the increasing amount of mothers and babies experiencing morbidity and mortality associated with caesarean section compared to vaginal birth. In high-income settings, emerging evidence suggests that overuse of obstetric intervention is more prevalent among wealthier mothers with no medical need of it. In Australia, the rates of caesarean section and other obstetric interventions are rising. These rising rates of intervention have been mirrored by a decreasing rate of unassisted non-instrumental vaginal deliveries. In the context of rising global concern about rising caesarean section rates and the known health effects of caesarean section on mothers and children, we aim to better characterise the use of obstetric intervention in the state of Queensland, Australia by examining the characteristics of mothers receiving obstetric intervention. Identifying whether there is overuse of obstetric interventions within a population is critical to improving the quality, value and appropriateness of maternity care. Methods The association between demographic characteristics (at birth) and birth delivery type were compared with chi-square. The percentage of mothers based on their socioeconomic characteristics were reported and differences in percentages of obstetric interventions were compared. Multivariate analysis was undertaken using multiple logistic regression to assess the likelihood of receiving obstetric intervention and having a vaginal (non-instrumental) delivery after accounting for key clinical characteristics. Results Indigenous mothers, mothers in major cities and mothers in the wealthiest quintile all had higher percentages of all obstetric interventions and had the lowest percentages of unassisted (non-instrumental) vaginal births. These differences remained even after adjusting for other key sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Conclusions Differences in obstetric practice exist between economic, ethnic and geographical groups of mothers that are not attributable to medical or lifestyle risk factors. These differences may reflect health system, organisational and structural conditions and therefore, a better understanding of the non-clinical factors that influence the supply and demand of obstetric interventions is required.

BackgroundThe World Health Organization states there are three interrelated domains that are fundamental to achieving and maintaining universal access to care - raising sufficient funds for health care, reducing financial barriers to access by pooling funds in a way that prevents out-of-pocket costs, and allocating funds in a way that promotes quality, efficiency and equity. In Australia, a comprehensive account of the mechanisms for financing the health system have not been synthesised elsewhere. Therefore, to understand how the maternal health system is financed, this review aims to examine the mechanisms for funding, pooling and purchasing maternal health care and the influence these financing mechanisms have on the delivery of maternal health services in Australia.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and interpretative synthesis of the financing mechanisms and their impact on Australia’s maternal health system. Due to the nature of the study question, the review had a major focus on grey literature. The search was undertaken in three stages including; searching (1) Google search engine (2) targeted websites and (3) academic databases. Executive summaries and table of contents were screened for grey literature documents and Titles and Abstracts were screened for journal articles. Screening of publications’ full-text followed. Data relating to either funding, pooling, or purchasing of maternal health care were extracted for synthesis.ResultsA total of 69 manuscripts were included in the synthesis, with 52 of those from the Google search engine and targeted website (grey literature) search. A total of 17 articles we included in the synthesis from the database search.ConclusionOur study provides a critical review of the mechanisms by which revenues are raised, funds are pooled and their impact on the way health care services are purchased for mothers and babies in Australia. Australia’s maternal health system is financed via both public and private sources, which consequentially creates a two-tiered system. Mothers who can afford private health insurance – typically wealthier, urban and non-First Nations women - therefore receive additional benefits of private care, which further exacerbates inequity between these groups of mothers and babies. The increasing out of pocket costs associated with obstetric care may create a financial burden for women to access necessary care or it may cause them to skip care altogether if the costs are too great.

Recent health reforms alongside unregulated provider fees have led to increased attention being given to out-of-pocket healthcare costs. This study utilised annual statistics published by the Department of Health for services provided under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) from 1992/3 to 2016/17 to identify changes in out-of-pocket charges for obstetric items over time, and estimate the change in demand for obstetric items in response to price increases. Since 1992/3 out-of-pocket charges increased by 1035% for out-of-hospital items and 77% for in-hospital items. Demand for obstetric items has reduced with increasing charges.